To be honest, one of the reasons I decided to even start the Snuh Zone was my dissatisfaction with videogame reviews. I always found that they were lacking (in general) from a few key areas that can be ironed out. The overarching problem that fuels my thoughts on videogame reviews is a lack of perspective. While most are well-written (certainly better than my writing) the perspective problem undermines videogame reviews.

Unclear/Not Cohesive

To start off, many videogame reviews you might read do not describe a strong opinion one way or another. One of the many ways to detect that ambiguity is the classic “it’s good but….” or “that’s bad but….”. As a reader I just want to know whether or not I should play/buy the game and why. I think the way some reviews go is by starting at a 10 (or the equivalent) and writing down as they are playing various points of deductions or praise. While I have no problem with referencing specific points, that approach is also confusing. Here’s a prime example from Gamepro on Darksiders, “I liked Darksiders enough that I’m going to recommend that gamers try to look past the shameless cribbing of ideas and discover the relatively worthwhile action experience hidden underneath.” From that quote I guess you should pick it up but who really knows.

Inconcise

There’s a reason people tend to just go to the score of a game and that Metacritic is so widely-used. A lot of the writing just drones on and on. 1up.com does an alright job of being relatively concise but even then they do not always cut to the chase. There’s the argument that the review ought to support the score and thus you need a lot of space. The problem is the writing is abstract and it is tough to maintain any level of interest. Giantbomb.com “quick looks” have become popular because people would rather see the game itself and not have to read someone’s attempt to translate game mechanics.

Small Scope Audience

Even within the gamer-collective, videogame reviews tend to write towards an audience that is the hardest of the hardcore. While they definitely have the hardcore gamer as part of their audience, that group of people is still relatively small. To most people all the 133t-speak and other references to other games is almost written off as an insider-language. If all I play is my DS, how does describing Dante’s Inferno as God of War help me understand the value of the game. Or saying, “Wii Play is not a game” while there are plenty of people who think of Wii Play as a game equally and enjoy the heck out of cow racing. If you think Wii Play is not a game than you have got your blinders on too tight.

Impersonal Perspective

Roger Ebert is a divisive critic and there are many who have an opinion as to whether or not they agree with his perspective. Oftentimes, the review is representative of the site/magazine and not really of the person. This dehumanization of the review comes across as false as when Stephen Colbert says “I don’t see race, people tell me I’m white and I choose to believe them”. Everyone knows that any review is a personal view and to not bring up the reviewer more prominently only fuels more “Your site is BIASED!!!111!!”. While many would believe Ebert is biased, it’s trivial to really point that out.

Singular-element focus

Controls-art-music-story-multiplayer. Check, check, check and check. That’s the way a lot of reviews are structured. IGN is notorious for having a ridiculously prescribed structure to reviews. I will often call out an element of a review as well but only when I feel like it is of any interest to me. Leave that stuff for the academic discussion the masses do not care.

How does all of the above tie-in with the lack of perspective I noted at the beginning? I believe that the reasons behind each of those problems stems from the fact that the decisions to write reviews in that way is not driven by what the reader cares about. If reviews were written with the reader as the primary consideration, you would definitely see much better reviews.